Mailbox

If you have anything to say on any subject, mail us at theeditor@football365.com

No Bribes Needed When You Make A Reasoned Argument
I think John Nicholson raises some valid and some not-so-valid points in his articulate summary of the arguments about introducing technology in football.

However, I would identify an argument in favour of technology that I don't think has yet been raised (and I would think it an argument that may not necessarily have been far from the minds of some elements within FIFA when they made their recent decision against the introduction of technology).

In essence, the judicious use of technology can be employed to undermine corruption within the game.

We've all seen high-stakes matches where dubious refereeing decisions have swung the tie. Thierry Henry has been mentioned, but I think the 2002 World Cup springs to mind as far more insidious. And there have been suggestions that such decisions may not have arisen spontaneously or naturally.

I fear that bribery and corruption will only increase the greater the volume of cash flows into the game. Referees and linesmen in almost all countries are underpaid and under-appreciated relative to the big-ego players and managers. In that light, some of the less morally resilient among them may become corrupted - for example, by the oligarchs, corporations and, yes, international bodies that control the game and stand to gain or lose vast sums on the basis of individual refereeing decisions on the pitch.

If the teams have an option to resort to technology when a decision seems flawed - along the lines of tennis, for example - there will be much less space in which the corrupted (or for that matter, incompetent) referee and/or linesman can decisively swing a match through a soft penalty, a harsh sending off or a false offside call.
Adam ('still vainly trying to get published.. maybe i need to bribe someone...') Gross, Johannesburg Whites


Half Right
I understand Johnny's point of view about the introduction of technology, but he's only half right, and even then, there are ways around this. Firstly, goal line technology ensures that goals that have crossed the line, but aren't seen by officials are still given - this is very different to an offside call, where the player breaking through still has a whole lot of work to do to get the goal. In the instance where it has crossed the goal line, the goal has already been scored, and should thus be awarded - and technology can only help here.

Johnny is right though, when he says it will open the door to the introduction of other technological innovations in the game - however, these will only be introduced as the technology to ensure the decisions are correctly made becomes widespread - it won't be a case of "now that we've got goal line technology, let's go the whole hog and implement stuff willy nilly" (hopefully, at any rate!). And there are ways around the constant stoppages scenario he paints - why not introduce a concept like they're trialling in cricket, where the captain (or perhaps in this case, the manager) has two (or perhaps three) opportunities to call for a referral of a particular decision. Get it right, you keep the referral, get it wrong, you lose a referral, it's not exactly rocket science.

And as for the complaints from the lower leagues, well, they'll just have to suck it up, won't they? Many cricket matches don't have all the required technology (at the moment) to enable the referral system (and it certainly doesn't happen once you get below international level) but that doesn't make it any less of a good idea, so why the hell not introduce it at the highest footballing levels, where the sides have the most to lose from a wrong decision? There are ways to introduce technology into the beautiful game that can only help - even if it is only to drag it kicking (not in a Ryan Shawcross way, though) and screaming into the 21st Century.

All it will take is some careful consideration for the needs of the game as a whole and some intelligent thought - so no chance of us getting anything like it from the current FIFA executive then!!
Rod (Four paragraphs are the new three) Weidemann, Johannesburg, South Africa


'An Absolute Joke'
Sorry Mr Nicholson but your rambling retort to the football world in favour of goal line technology is an absolute joke and a muck of contradictions to boot. How you're employed to utter such drivel is beyond me? Perhaps to garner a response such as the one to follow? While I often find your columns entertaining and insightful, I'm afraid you've got this one wrong, not only in defence of Sepp Blatter but also in your diversive but easily dissected defence.

You say that Fifa have only made a couple of major changes in football as they don't do 'revolution'. While this may be true in terms of instant changes to the game it's certainly not true in terms of gradual changes to the game that have taken place since it's inception. I understand your reference only to Fifa (pretty clever and specific) and in that sense you are right but technology has changed football over and over again. To state that someone in 1910 would think football is 'essentially the same' as it is today is a complete nonsense.

Technology has provided footballers with lightweight polyester kits, with football boots that are designed bespoke for a large majority of footballers (a bit different to the 2 kilo leather luggers they had back then methinks), footballs which are probably 10 times lighter than they were back then - hence it's a lot quicker today making decisions a lot harder to judge - and television brought it to the masses and injected millions of pounds into football, so much so that it is no longer just a sport but a business (I don't like this but it's a point worth making) and as for the pitches....well, I can't imagine Arsenal (or was it Woolwich Arsenal back then) playing the kind of football they play today on the pitches of yestercentury as the kind of "technology" available today to cross pollinate/hybridise uber grass simply wasn't available. Pitches today are incredible - except for the lower leagues and Wembley of course. All of this and more is down to technology.

There's nothing to stop them putting a simple microchip in footballs that would indicate it's crossed the goal line. Perhaps it may be hard to impliment accross all leagues but it could be done in the Premiership, Championship, World Cup, European Cup, Champions League and Europa League - as well as european top flight leagues. Perhaps with that in mind, other competitions would follow suit (toe the line due to the benefits) and the game would be better off becuase of it.

I'd like to finish with your statement about England's 1966 world cup win. You say that if we had goal line technology back then we may not have won the world cup (I'll ignore the fact that the kind of technology needed perhaps wasn't available), but perhaps you should respect the possibilty that had the goal not been given and we had gone on to lose then it surely would have been just. The technology should be there to make sure a teams win or loss is deserved and surely this 'mirror' image of society is backwards compatible. Time to give society something back??
Andrew Fairclough


...Johnny Nich parrots many of the arguments of the luddite brigade without even a modicum inquiry into the strength of those arguments, so to provide a bit of balance:

1) It's worked this way for years, we just see more of it now thanks to telly. There was a rather large expenses scandal last year, but MPs have been milking the system for years, why get angry at this lot in particular? Because it was exposed. We use CCTV to catch criminals don't we? When you're in the stadium, it's much harder to spot the ref dropping a clanger because, like him, you only see the incident once, but these days at the top level more people watch on TV than in the grounds and even those who are at the game usually watch some form of highlights program afterwards. The ref is castigated and dropped divisions as punishment. This didn't happen before TV saturation so the idea that FIFA could use this particular argument as justification is moot. Technology would give the ref a hand in doing his very difficult job rather than being given a punishment that is of no comfort to the wronged team.

2) It's the thin end of the technological wedge. Goal line technology is easy to implement and clear cut. A chip in the ball, a pair of sensors at either end of the ground and some of the most crucial moments in our wonderfully low-scoring sport become 100% accurate. Offsides are also (potentially) clear cut but the technology is harder to implement (unless we take to micro-chipping our footballers). Other decisions (such as the Henry handball, fouls etc) are almost entirely subjective and require a human to view them. Goal line tech does not. That's a clear dividing line between the proposal and potential video refs.

3) Teams could have goals disallowed by GLT but have an offside goal against them. That's unfair. More unfair than their opposition having a goal that doesn't cross the line given against them? This is a ridiculous argument that equates two different laws of the game (offside and, y'know, scoring a goal). Two wrongs don't make a right etc etc and so on.

4) People would abuse it to break up the game. Firstly, this is assuming more than just GLT is introduced (If the ball crosses the line, the ref would be alerted instantly and the goal awarded, so the problem doesn't exist with GLT). Secondly, this was also a problem when technology was introduced into (the admittedly more stop-start) tennis and cricket. Limiting the number of referrals and setting down strict rules on when they can be called and who by (say the manager must call it and it must be done within 5 seconds of the incident). Get it wrong or change your mind and, sorry, lose a referral. As in cricket, certain decisions could be referred at the request of the referee (umpires often check run outs and low catches just to be sure).

5) Refs would use it as a crutch. Maybe, but they shouldn't be reffing at the top level if they don't have the confidence to make calls. GLT would in fact reinforce the ref's confidence as it would no longer be something to worry about (or have a potentially wrong decision in the back of his mind when making judgment calls for the rest of the game). Again, see cricket where the best umpires confidently call all but the tightest of run outs and lbws. And if the team really thinks he's got it wrong then they can offer a referral.

6) It's expensive. So's adding extra refs behind the goals but UEFA are trialling that as an alternative to GLT (so it's not like they don't think there's a problem). In fact it would probably be more expensive to pay 2 extra refs per match than install and maintain a pair of sensors and a micro chipped ball.

7) It wouldn't be fair down the divisions. Same as point 6 (extra refs also drains officials from lower divisions reducing the standards down there). Also, is it fair now? The best refs are in the top divisions so arguably the authorities already consider decisions made in the lower leagues to be less important. The problems raised in point 1 are less prevalent: the majority of people watching are in the ground. Another, much poorer argument, is that the Football League (and below) is far more open that the Premier League (Wolves lost 10 times when winning the FL last year, Man United lost just 4 games to win the PL) and so a wrong decision here or there has nowhere near the impact of one in the top division. I admit, this is a Nicholson strength argument, but it would be factored in by the FA when considering how far down to implement GLT.

Johnny closes by stating the football, just as life, is flawed and we shouldn't change that. I agree, but if there was a flaw in your life that could be so easily remedied, with little to no effort on your part, a clear cut way to improve your existance, would you not take it? FIFA wouldn't and it is easily argued that their continued existence as the governing body is the biggest single flaw in our game.
Matt C (please print this, it took bloody ages!), AFC & CAFC


The Wrong Neville
Would any more learned observers of Everton Football Club care to enlighten us to why Phil Neville is not deemed among the options bandied about for Fabio Cappello's England squad for the World Cup?

What would the general criteria applied to a prospective World Cup player?

Experience of major international tournaments: Check
Experience of top level domestic and European club football: Check
First choice with a decent Premier League club: Check
Versatility: Check

The man can play to a more than decent standard at right back, defensive midfielder and has also operated at left back in the best side in Europe. What are the three positions England seem most devoid of options in?

Admittedly, he's not getting any younger, but he's certainly more reliable than his older brother, Glen Johnson and Wes Brown and in my opinion, is probably the best all around right back of the three.

I'd declare him a shoo-in, and I'm not just saying that because I'm Irish!
Kevin Hough


A Stout Defence Of Scholes
The amount of utter bollix written in the Mailbox never really surpises me, but I have to admit I was aghast to read Anthony Rimell's assessment of Paul Scholes. I wouldn't normally bother, but the sheer ignorance shown toward Scholes, even by some United fans has always been a source of irritation to me, and Id like to take this opportunity to put a few things straight.

If anything, being English has led to Paul Scholes being considerably less revered than he deserves. If he'd been born in a country where the qualities of touch, vison and technical ability were actually, appreciated (ie, anwhere else on the whole wide world) Paul Scholes would have been hailed a genius. Of course, as an Englishman, Anthony would view my opinion as utterly biased, so how about we take the opinons' of a few random Johnny Foreigners?

Zinedine Zidane : "Scholes is undoubtedly the best midfielder of his generation."

Edgar Davids : "Every one of us (midfielders) is just trying to become as good as him. Everyone can learn from Paul Scholes."

Cesc Fabregas : "He is the one whose level I aspire to. He is the best player in the Premier League."

Patrick Vieira : "The player in the Premiership I admire most? Easy - Scholes."

Marcello Lippi : "Paul Scholes would have been one of my first choices for putting together a great team - that goes to show how highly I have always rated him. Scholes is a player I have always liked, because he combines great talent and technical ability with mobility, determination and a superb shot. He is an all-round midfielder who possesses character and quality in abundance. In my opinion, he's been one of the most important players for United under Sir Alex."

Feeling silly now Anthony?
Michael Peel


A Two-Playered Miracle
So having gone to the match on Saturday I noticed a few things that I thought merited a mention. Firstly the fact that essentially with two players (Fabregas and Vermaelen) we are still only 2 points off the lead and in with a real shout of winning the title, is nothing short of a miracle.

The fact however that we needed to score 4 unanswered goals to go top and get a real psychological edge and didn't, is another matter altogether. It should have finished 10-2, but since none of the players apart from the above mentioned two and maybe diaby and walcott on the day, could muster the effort to even break sweat we are consigned to 3rd or 4th without question. There was absolutely no desire or effort from most of the players and quite what the club are doing paying them rediculous amounts of money to run around on a Saturday is beyond me.

Incidentally, I reckon we should let the grounds staff take over the medical job. If they even do half as good a job as keeping the players in order as they do with the pitch we'll be far better off. I've been saying for years that the Arsenal medical staff have a lot to answer for...

Anyhow here to hoping and having it snatched away from us again at the death...
Liam. Ireland


He's Not Happy
Let me get this straight, you consistently berate the performances of a young boy from age 16 to 20 for not being superb consistently. (Forgetting this is the main weakness of any young player)

Then after a season of injury problems and more intense criticism a player finally gives a decent account of themselves and it's down your berating? Even the Daily Mail are not this delusional and frankly stuck up their own arse!

Is every young player with promise meant to be Fabregas or Rooney at 20 now? (in fact even Rooney came in for criticism).

Oh and you also condemn the red tops for undermining England's chances at mayor tournaments with shoddy, morally questionable and simply brainless reporting. If only I could prove morally questionable I tell ya!

F365 questioning the level of journalism of the tabloids is like Kerry Katona's arse saying her growler is a smelly hole!
MB Iarmhi abu


Bendtner Will Come Good
Just thought I would throw my two cents into the Bendtner debate. I am in the camp that he will become a very good Premier league striker and although Saturday provided a string of misses the fact that he has the movement and awareness to get into these positions is fruther evidence of this.

In general young strikers (he is only 21) stand out from the rest if they have great pace (Owen etc.) or incredible skill (Ronaldo, Messi et al) however Bendtner does not have either these abundence.

Therefore the way he will make his impact as a front man is thorugh taking up great positions and reading the game better than most so that he will hopefully develop into someone who is in the right place at the right time. Players like this tend to peak in their mid to late 20s with stirkers such as Van Nistelrooy and Inzaghi beng examples of this if it is not something "natural".

While Bendtner may not fall into their class he is sort of player that needs to time to pick up the finer points of the game and this will only come with time and experience, and there is no better place for him to do this than at Arsenal.This is why the fans are being so supportive of him and Wenger as faith as they can see the type of player that he could become.

A slight aside for the 4th para - dont most players get a standing ovation when they come off now a days, providing they havent had a stinker - not really a big thing as it used to be. If a standing ovation meant an incredible performacne (and not simply for putting in a standard 6/10 cameo) then John Harley would be up there challenging for Fifa World Player of the Year
Efe , Watford


An Answer
Dear Steve, Barcelona

When Gary Neville is the next cab off the rank three months before a world cup, that's when.
Richard Pike


Mashed Spuds
To Javed LFC, to answer your question: Dawson, Bassong, Bale, Kranjaer and one of Crouch/Pavlyuchenko We had to recall 2 youngsters out on loan to fill the bench.

I'm not sayine we're alone with this but get your facts right.
John THFC


Mikel For England?
Watching Motd last night it occurred to me that Mikel Arteta is now or soon will be eligible to play for England, I was wondering what the mailbox thought of this?

In the past we've not really had to confront this issue because any player who could potentially play for England despite being born in another nation( Almunia, Di Canio etc) hasn't really been better than what he already have. But Arteta is clearly a class act and, in my opinion, a superior player to both Micheal Carrick and Gareth Barry.

What does everyone reckon?
Joe, LFC


...There's been much written about the likes of Walcott and Lennon not taking there chance and their apparent loss of form. What about Mikel Arteta for England? He now qualifies for UK Citizenship if he did want to apply for it. He's only been back a month after a 11 month long lay off and has already picked up where he left off. Spain's midfield is the best in the world with the likes of Iniesta, Xavi, Alonso etc so unless they have some serious injuries he wont be playing for them anytime soon.

I'm sure a talent like that can only benefit England's World Cup hopes.
Richie


Alright Dave?
I see Del Boy (aka 'Arry "Top Top" Redknapp) has been mouthing off again in the papers about the lack of English managers in the Premiership and about having (filthy) foreigners managing the national team.

With the exception of Roy Hodgson, can anyone think of a good English manager?

The Premiership currently offers the "foul and hoof it" styles of Pulis, Allardyce, and Orange Phil Brown, the ineptitude of Brian Laws and the jump ship when the going gets tough Steve Bruce. Not forgetting the tax dodger himself, Mr Cheque is in the Post Del Boy 'Arry.

On another subject can you start a campaign for the TV companies to offer a "no commentary" option on the red button so that fans can hear the crowd and noise in the stadium without the action being spoilt by moronic commentators that seem to have now infected all broadcasters (with the exception of your parent company of course)?

I feel like adding a fifth paragraph: two world wars and one world cup doo da doo da.
Cinzio (that half naked Stoke fan at Chelsea put me off my tea) Tarricone.


Correction From A Few People
Anthony (One Emile Heskey, there's only One Emile Heskey!) Rimell, New Zealand: the 407 by Emile's name is the number of games he took to get to 100, not the number of goals he has scored. It surprised me that he'd even reached 100!
Rob (Stockport County By The Grace of God) Reckless, Stockport.


Another Word From Africa
A few mailboxes back, some folk gave an in-depth analysis on the Eyptian national team and some other folks applauded him, wanting more from other countries.

Well, here is Nigeria's national team analysis - THEY ARE SH*T.

That's all.
Law (Is Denilson actually a Brazilian? We need proof), Nigeria


A Plea
Dear Mr. Waddle,

Can you please say Nani is absolute dog shit on live TV?
Desikan Srinivasan (and the jinx would be lifted) India


An Answer
In response to

Omer Zaheer, Lahore, Pakistan

The number 52 on Bendtners back is the amount of goals a real centre forward would score in a season with the same chances. When is Robin van Persie back?
Matti, London


One-Eyed Monsters
Reading the mailbox over the last few days it appears that Arsenal fans think Walcott is quality whilst fans of other teams seem to think he ranges from over-rated to promising. Obviously Arsenal fans watch him play live more than other teams fans do so it got me thinking what other players from rival teams do their fans think are amazing yet you just can't see it.

First nomination is James Tomkins of West Ham - my West Ham mates think he's the next England captain, from what I've seen he's shocking.
Gavin, MCFC